• comment on a post TX-SEN: Wild Swing Back Towards Cornyn? over 6 years ago

    I live in Austin, TX and there has not been very much coverage of the race in the mainstream media.  All the visibility I've gotten on Rick Noriega has been through blogs.

    So maybe it's a bit early.  I'm hopeful the gap will close.  I'm not so optimistic as to think Democrats are going to turn Texas blue this year, but if we take steps in that direction, maybe there will be greater electoral possibilities in the future..

  • on a comment on What Does Hillary Want? over 6 years ago

    I'm more concerned about how her supporters feel, because I want them to vote for Obama in the fall, period.

    But the "take it easy on her, guys!" stuff doesn't really fly with me.  She stayed in this thing to the bitter end, months after the odds of victory had shrunk to near-nothingness.  

    As a Democrat, I want to take McCain down and get our people elected.  This country has been suffering due to Bush rule and I can not wait to kick that fucker out of the White House and put a Democrat in his place.  

    Wanting her to concede graciously and start working with Obama (instead of against him) is just a natural part of that burning desire to move past Bush.  It has nothing to do with Hillary's feelings, it has to do with wanting the party to come together today.

  • on a comment on What Does Hillary Want? over 6 years ago

    There are lots of reasons to believe it is unlikely to materialize.  

    It's not like the OP was declaring anything.

    Prediction:  Clinton is going to play an important role in President Obama's government.

  • on a comment on What Does Hillary Want? over 6 years ago

    I agree very much with your statement that she needs to endorse Obama when she can do so credibly and authetically.  It was hard to imagine her standing up and doing so last night, in front of all her passionate supporters, without triggering a riot.  

    I expect she will endorse soon, in a very different venue, and that her endorsement will be treated with respect by most Clinton supporters.  

    But let's be careful not to conflate the 2-3% of Clinton dead-enders (who happen to be represented at much higher percentages here) with the majority of registered Democrats who supported her campaign.

    Anyone who supported Clinton, who seriously examines Obama and McCain on the issues can not seriously endorse staying home or voting for McCain, no matter what their misgivings may be about Obama.

  • on a comment on Barack Obama for President over 6 years ago

    How about some examples to back up the "dirty" and "unethical" claims?

  • One of the worst political speeches I've ever witnessed.  How can you get any lower?

    The "he'll talk to Iran but not to Petraeus" argument is beyond lame, it's downright stupid.  

    His arguments about how the "progress" we've seen since we've "changed course" in Iraq wouldn't have happened with a president like Barack Obama, because Obama is just a cut-and-runner ... that shit insults my intelligence.

    Even his audience doesn't seem to buy it.  Either that or they're experiencing some flavor of collective narcolepsy.

  • What "defies reason" is your ability to parrot every single meaningless Clinton dead-ender talking point in under two paragraphs.

    Let's see, cherry-picking timeframes that include the most favorable results, a lie about "all the big states," some nonsense about "popular vote" (however you choose to measure it), followed by some bullshit about how "Obama's lobbyists" are the reason why SDs are going his way?  He only won because Republicans voted for him?  My bullshit-o-meter is going off the charts.

    I'd suggest getting back in touch with reality.  John McCain and the Republican party are the enemies here, assuming, of course, that you are a Democrat.

  • comment on a post Live Thread IV at the RBC over 6 years ago

    Thank God that's over!  

    It was fairly exciting to watch, I'll have to admit.

    The extreme pro-Clinton folks at the proceedings really did a disservice to their candidate.  But let's try not to hold the psychotic behavior against the candidate or her supporters.  

    I respect everyone's right to protest, but as a Democrat first, I am pleased that this thing is getting some resolution.  The "Democrats" hooting and hollering about taking it to Denver don't represent the party, and they certainly don't have everyone's best interests in mind.

    Time to move beyond petty arguments over which candidate is better and rally to beat McCain.  Stakes are too damn high.

  • on a comment on Live Thread III at the RBC over 6 years ago

    But really, the Obama camp shouldn't care at all about "popular vote."  It's a phony argument and one without a clear resolution.

    They should care about getting this issue resolved so everyone can come out of this meeting feeling represented.  

    If they're getting a good compromise on Florida, I think they should also considering giving Clinton what she wants in Michigan.  She nets delegates, but Obama's lead is still plenty safe.

    I'd prefer everybody got on board with what the Michigan Democratic Party people came to as a compromise, but that would make the whole thing a bit too easy.

  • on a comment on Live Thread III at the RBC over 6 years ago

    Personally, I don't give a fuck where he does or does not go to church.

    Call me CRAZY.

  • on a comment on Live Thread III at the RBC over 6 years ago

    Wait, the guy represents Obama and you assume the "hooting and hollering" as a result of his statements was by Obama supporters?

    Talk about hearing what you want to hear..

  • on a comment on Declaring Victory over 6 years ago

    The two candidates are well within reach of each other?

    They need to be in reach of the delegate majority to win this thing.

    Given the current parameters, according to demconwatch.blogspot.com, Obama needs 44 delegates to clinch the nomination, whereas Clinton needs 244.  (If you give Florida and Michigan half-delegates for the existing votes, those numbers "balloon" out to 85.5 and 239.5 -- see http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/05/ fl-mi-by-numbers_21.html).

    It is very nearly mathematically impossible for her to win without major SD side-switching.  There is literally nothing going on in the news right now that would indicate that SDs are ready to move en masse towards Clinton.  

    Just because some number of passionate Clinton supporters think she is the stronger candidate in the general does not make it so!  

    I respect that you may believe she is a stronger candidate, but believing it does not make it true.  There just isn't enough evidence (no matter how you look at cherry picked polls) that would indicate the SDs are going to change their minds for any reason.

    Given the stakes, I sincerely hope the most passionate of Clinton supporters get on board soon and help this country move past the 8 year Bush Repulibcan nightmare we've been living through.

  • comment on a post Idaho primary confirms TX, WA, NE trend over 6 years ago

    Idaho non-binding primary confirms that non-binding primaries don't mean anything!

  • And seriously, how about enough of the argument that Obama is somehow nearly unelectable because of polls taken 5 months in advance of the general?

    These are both great candidates.

    Stop with the hand-wringing.

    And remember:  in an Obama vs McCain general election matchup, which of those two own this fucking fiasco in Iraq?

  • on a comment on Half Votes For Florida? over 6 years ago

    She can try again in 2016.


Advertise Blogads